Cycloptichorn wrote:Truthfully, the number of black voters could have been way less and he still would have won.
For sure. Even if he had won the black vote over Hillary by just 55% to 45% instead of by 78% to 19%, he would still have eeked out a plurality! But of course, that would have been primarily because Edwards and Hillary split most of the white vote.
Roxxxanne wrote:I wouldn't argue with anyone who made that claim, it is strictly a matter of opinion. Based on the people I have been exposed to, South Carolinians are about as Neanderthalic as it gets.
No, a claim like that is not "strictly a matter of opinion". Whether the population of a given state overall is more or less conservative than others can be measured. In a number of different ways, according to your preference - for example, say, the margin with which Bush won the '04 elections. Or the degree to which a state votes only Republicans in state politics. Or what polling says about social attitudes of the population about gender and race. Or - well, take your pick.
I strongly doubt, from anything I've ever seen, that any of those measurements would end up showing SC as the most conservative state in the entire US. Digby was just spouting stuff that sounded good for his argument. I dont like that <shrugs>.
blatham wrote:Oh for goodness sakes.
Describing Obama's ability to inspire citizens as Messianism is like describing an election win as a revolutionary coup.
What are your alternatives, after all? Government administration by software program? Uninspired, uninterested and apathetic constituencies across the nation? Young people who don't give a phuck?
Yes, because of course the only alternative to someone who might give, for example, a German observer like Thomas a little too much of an uneasy feeling in terms of his messianic appeal, must be a completely robotic non-entity leaving entirely apathetic constituencies behind. There's nothing, like, in between. Please..
